2022 (2) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Bagasse - exempt goods or not - use of both dutiable and exempted final products - non-maintenance of separate accounts for the receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant for use in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted final products - Rule 6 (3) and Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether the appellants are liable to pay 6% / 7% of the value of Bagasse sold by them for consideration? - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT had an occasion to consider the very same issue wherein it has been held that Since it is not a manufacture, obviously Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, shall have no application as rightly held by the High Court. - Since Bagasse is held not to be result of any manufacture. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are liable to pay 6% / 7% of the value of Bagasse sold by them for consideration.

Analysis:
The case involves the appellants engaged in the manufacture of sugar and availing cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services. The department alleged that the appellants did not maintain separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted final products, leading to a demand for recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit, interest, and penalties. The original authority confirmed part of the demand, interest, and imposed penalties, prompting the appeal.

The main argument presented by the appellant was regarding Bagasse, an agricultural waste arising in the manufacturing process. The appellant contended that Bagasse is not consciously manufactured and is not excisable, challenging the department's conclusion that Bagasse is an exempted final product. The appellant cited legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India Vs DSCL Sugar Ltd., which held that Bagasse is not excisable due to the absence of a manufacturing process.

The issue at hand was whether the appellants are liable to pay a percentage of the value of Bagasse sold by them. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that for Bagasse to be considered a final product, it must undergo a manufacturing process as per the definition in Section 2(f) of the Act. Since Bagasse is an agricultural waste without any manufacturing process specified in relevant schedules, it does not fall under the definition of manufacture, and thus, no excise duty is applicable. Consequently, the demand for payment was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment centered on the classification of Bagasse as a final product for excise duty purposes, relying on legal interpretations and precedents to determine that Bagasse does not qualify as a manufactured product, leading to the allowance of the appeal and relief for the appellants.